Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Loncar

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Loncar[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only source is IMDb which is not a reliable source. This has been the case for this article for over a decade.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom, JPL, and WP:NEXIST: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. The inundation of Wikipedia with only IMDb sourced content (we are probably that site's biggest supporter) does not give the presumption of notability. When Wikipedia was a fledgling encyclopedia we gave greater latitude. At a point it is responsible to back up content with reliable sources that support claims of notability, especially concerning BLP's. It is one thing to have a poorly sourced yet notable topic, but an unsourced career stub BLP, that is less than a dictionary entry with an embedded list of a filmography section, backed by a source "generally" considered unreliable (placed in an "External links section), presenting "less" than we would consider as a pseudo biography, fails our current notability guidelines as well as more than one policy. Asserting reliable sources exists is easy to state but we need significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources to advance notability. Otr500 (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to give the IMDb as the only citation issue some perspective this article was created on May 13, 2007. That is almost 13 years ago. This is not a rush job on an article created a few days ago, or even hours ago. Just to show how strong our deferrel is to IMDb, which we say is unreliable, on 15 August 2007 I created an article on Alexander Schreiner, who is arguably the most famous person to have ever been the organist for the Tabernacle on Temple Square in Salt Lake City and the Choir at that Tabernacle. I have since found a full-length biography of him published by a company that in no way could be said to be connected with him in any way, however even in the earliest drafts I included an admittedly not fully developed listing of J. Spencer Cornwall's book on the history of the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square as a source. Yet it faced an immediate attempt to delete just after I created it. Since then I have always waited to do an initial save until I had at least some sourcing. No such front ending challenge was placed against this always less adequately sourced article. Actor and actress articles get way too much deference without any evidence of meeting notability guidelines. In this case since this is a living person our biography of living people rules mean we must delete anything not reliably sourced, which with no reliable source means we should delete all of it. BLP rules means we must include the sources to have anything, and the sources are not here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The subject's main role in The Loop seems to be the only role which would go towards WP:ENT. There may be another role, too, perhaps in a play, but I was not able to access the full Hollywood Reporter article via "google books": here. So I think the subject probably falls shy of ENT. And while there are a lot of hits at newspapers.com, the coverage appears to be all quite minor. She also gets some coverage in Deadline and Digital Spy articles, but it's mainly limited to saying that she landed a role in the pilot, Lovelies, and then was replaced by another actress. Therefore, I don't think WP:GNG is quite met, either. If anyone is able to provide any insight as to the Hollywood Reporter article I cited above, and whether it contains significant coverage, please let me know. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.